 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Archaeology Forum » What if there really were evidence for Biblical... |
|
Page 40 of 46 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 39, 40, 41 ... 44, 45, 46 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Weland... |
 Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote]Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
On the other hand, we await a single valid argument
as to why it doesn't refer to an Israel.
No you don't.
[/quote]
Yes we do. The only "evidence" you've presented is a circular argument
and a claim backed up by your vast ignorance of the language and script.
[quote]
The fact that it doesn't say "Israel" --
[/quote]
Didn't say it did. You apparently are unaware of the difference in
meaning between "say" and "refer". There are some good online
dictionaries I'm sure we'll be happy to point you toward. Doubt you'd
use them though.
[quote]that it's only
interpreted as Israel -- is self evident.
[/quote]
Fallacy within a fallacy! I will say you are talented at making
fallacious arguments.
Besides the
[quote]fact that the ancient Egyptians simply never left
us with names in perfect phonetic English, they
didn't even have a letter 'L'. Hence, it is physically
impossible for the name "Israel" to appear on the
stone.
[/quote]
Already dealt with many times, but I know you are no intellectual
gnat...gnats can at least move forward.
[quote]
The question was always WHY is the word that
appears on the stele INTERPRETED as "Israel,"
a question that has never once received a legitimate
answer.
[/quote]
Yes it has. You then rejected it by rejecting the entire field of
diachronic linguistics with a finely honed set of fallacious arguments
that you claimed were "evidence." We all laughed. At you, not with you.
[quote]If there ever is a legitimate answer I will address it,
but thus far not one human being on the face of the
planet -- regardless of education or experience --
has ever produced one.
[/quote]
And there you have it, folks. Every archaeologist, linguist, and
historian of the period has just made an assumption, no one has read,
because the craven coward who doesn't know the language, script,
linguistics, archaeology, or history has declared it thus! Keep it up
JStupid, this is why you are so entertaining! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote]Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
Yes we do. The only "evidence" you've presented is
a circular argument
So you don't know what a "circular argument" is, either.
[/quote]
Textbook case: Israel didn't exist, therefore the stele can't refer to
Israel. Remember, this is one of your arguments.
[quote]
: "The circular argument uses its own conclusion as one of
: its stated or unstated premises. Instead of offering proof,
: it simply asserts the conclusion in another form, thereby
: inviting the listener to accept it as settled when, in fact, it
: has not been settled.
http://grammar.about.com/od/c/g/circargterm.htm
Now, as for what I said...
[/quote]
Indeed, you said Israel doesn't exist, therefore it can't refer to
Israel. You then inverted your own argument and claimed that anyone who
says it refers to Israel is doing so because they assume Israel to exist.
[quote]
I stated three points. The first was that the ancient Egyptians
did not make a habit of leaving us texts written in perfect
phonetic English.
[/quote]
Red Herring. Nothing to do with the discussion, then or now. Fallacy.
[quote]
Is this "Circular"? Not at all.
[/quote]
Just fallacious.
[quote]Next I pointed out that the ancient Egyptians didn't even
have an 'L' so it would be impossible for them to write
the word "Israel."
[/quote]
A fact that it took you months to recognize after I'd been telling you
about it for ages. But another fallacy, since no one has claimed that
the Egyptians do have an "l" (well, except you...remember you did try
that whole Hellenistic era bit) or that an "l" is represented on the
stele. Thus, another fallacy.
[quote]
Circular? No.
[/quote]
Just fallacious.
[quote]
Finally I concluded by pointing out the bleeding obvious: That
instead of any ancient Egyptian scribe writing "Israel," what
we have here is a case where people are INTERPRETING a
certain word as meaning "Israel."
[/quote]
Non sequitur. Even if your 2 propositions were valid arguments rather
than fallacies, this conclusion would not follow from those
propositions. So another fallacy. Yet even worse, you draw a
fallacious conclusion from fallacious propositions, which is well,
compounding fallacy upon fallacy.
[quote]
Circular? Again, no.
[/quote]
Just fallacious.
"Circular" would require it to be predicated
[quote]on itself, while the conclusion here ("It's merely interpreted as
Israel") is actually predicated on the prior two points -- that the
ancient Egyptians didn't leave us with words in perfect phonetic
English, and couldn't in this case even if they wanted to, as they
had no 'L'.
This is not to say that there have been no circular arguments
posted here. Here's an unusually transparent circular argument:
: Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
: It can be read as "ysra3r" because that is what it says.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.ancient/msg/44d7f473644827b6?hl=en&dmode=source
[/quote]
Except that's not an argument, so it can't be circular. You are
essentially saying that if you read the word "craven" and say "that word
is 'craven'" that you are making a circular argument. I suppose if you
want to maintain that, well, go right ahead. But most people who can
think their way out of wet paper bags and above know the difference
between observation of fact and using the fact to make an argument. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
[quote]Textbook case: Israel didn't exist, therefore the
stele can't refer to Israel.
[/quote]
This is not a "Circular Argument," shit for brains, it's
a "Strawman Argument." You're raising and then
attacking an argument that nobody made.
THIS is a circular argument:
: Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
: It can be read as "ysra3r" because that is what it says.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.ancient/msg/44d7f473644827b6?hl=en&dmode=source
[quote] Remember, this is one of your arguments.
[/quote]
No. If it had been my argument you would have been able
to cite it, as I was able to cite the example of your circular
argument.
[quote]: "The circular argument uses its own conclusion as one of
: its stated or unstated premises. Instead of offering proof,
: it simply asserts the conclusion in another form, thereby
: inviting the listener to accept it as settled when, in fact, it
: has not been settled.
http://grammar.about.com/od/c/g/circargterm.htm
Now, as for what I said...
Indeed, you said
[/quote]
No I didn't, shit for brains. You're as bad at lying as
you are at counting.
I stated three points. The first was that the ancient Egyptians
did not make a habit of leaving us texts written in perfect
phonetic English.
Is this "Circular"? Not at all.
Next I pointed out that the ancient Egyptians didn't even
have an 'L' so it would be impossible for them to write
the word "Israel."
Circular? No.
Finally I concluded by pointing out the bleeding obvious: That
instead of any ancient Egyptian scribe writing "Israel," what
we have here is a case where people are INTERPRETING a
certain word as meaning "Israel."
Circular? Again, no. "Circular" would require it to be predicated
on itself, while the conclusion here ("It's merely interpreted as
Israel") is actually predicated on the prior two points -- that the
ancient Egyptians didn't leave us with words in perfect phonetic
English, and couldn't in this case even if they wanted to, as they
had no 'L'. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
[quote]JTEM wrote:
This is not a "Circular Argument,"
Yes it is.
[/quote]
Ah, argued with all your usual (total lack of)
finesse....
[quote] shit for brains, it's
a "Strawman Argument." You're raising and then
attacking an argument that nobody made.
You didn't say per se, granted, but it is what you think.
[/quote]
So not only don't you know what a "circular argument" is,
but now you;re making arguments predicated on your
ability to read minds...
You're just one fallacy after another, without any rest.
Bringing us back to the topic:
You claimed that there were legitimate reasons for
interpreting the Merneptah stele as mentioning Israel.
When challenged to articulate those legitimate reasons
here, you couldn't. So, instead you posted the usual
bullshit argument for the historical existence of Israel.
You followed up this amazing stupid drivel by failing to
correctly identify the number of hieroglyphs making up
the word in question -- the word you like to pretend
says "Israel."
Bringing us full circle, in a desperate attempt to distract
from these two examples of your monumental stupidity,
you're attributing your own crime of posting circular
arguments to me.
You're welcome, shit for brains. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote]Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
Textbook case: Israel didn't exist, therefore the
stele can't refer to Israel.
This is not a "Circular Argument,"
[/quote]
Yes it is.
shit for brains, it's
[quote]a "Strawman Argument." You're raising and then
attacking an argument that nobody made.
[/quote]
You didn't say per se, granted, but it is what you think.
[quote]THIS is a circular argument:
: Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
: It can be read as "ysra3r" because that is what it says.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.ancient/msg/44d7f473644827b6?hl=en&dmode=source
[/quote]
Uh no....observing that I just typed observing isn't a circular
argument, it's an observation of fact. I observed what the name on the
inscription can be read as "yrsra3r" because it can and is...that's
fact. What it *means* is what is being disputed by you, and my
statement as quoted makes no observation on the meaning, circular or
otherwise.
[quote]
Remember, this is one of your arguments.
No. If it had been my argument you would have been able
to cite it, as I was able to cite the example of your circular
argument.
[/quote]
You have said many times that Israel didn't exist. You have criticized
my views erroneously as claiming that this "Israel" suddenly popped into
existence c. 1200...a view you claim is wrong. You in fact went on at a
little length to demand to know where these people were before the
stele...and concluded that they didn't exist. In short, you've all but
stated the circular argument above. I just helped out a little.
[quote]
I stated three points. The first was that the ancient Egyptians
did not make a habit of leaving us texts written in perfect
phonetic English.
Is this "Circular"? Not at all.
[/quote]
But it is fallacious. No one made the claim that they did.
[quote]
Next I pointed out that the ancient Egyptians didn't even
have an 'L' so it would be impossible for them to write
the word "Israel."
Circular? No.
[/quote]
Still fallacious, and again, no one made the claim that they there is an
"l" there.
[quote]Finally I concluded by pointing out the bleeding obvious: That
instead of any ancient Egyptian scribe writing "Israel," what
we have here is a case where people are INTERPRETING a
certain word as meaning "Israel."
[/quote]
Which even if your propositions were valid, would be a non
sequitur...this doesn't follow from your statements. But regrettably, a
false conclusion from false premises is still fallacious. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
[quote]JTEM wrote:
Ah, argued with all your usual (total lack of)
finesse....
Oh, you only respond to a 2x4 up along side your head....
[/quote]
Said the ignorant pussy for who couldn't even count the
number of hieroglyphs in a word... Sheesh!
So, go on, admit your mistake. Admit you made a whopping
huge mistake when you claimed there were six signs, because
there are really seven. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote]Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
This is not a "Circular Argument,"
Yes it is.
Ah, argued with all your usual (total lack of)
finesse....
[/quote]
Oh, you only respond to a 2x4 up along side your head....finesse would
be lost on you; you simply aren't bright enough.
[quote]
shit for brains, it's
a "Strawman Argument." You're raising and then
attacking an argument that nobody made.
You didn't say per se, granted, but it is what you think.
So not only don't you know what a "circular argument" is,
but now you;re making arguments predicated on your
ability to read minds...
[/quote]
No, just reading your words and claims.
[quote]You're just one fallacy after another, without any rest.
[/quote]
Coming from you, who can't send a post without a fallacy, that's a
compliment.
[quote]
Bringing us back to the topic:
You claimed that there were legitimate reasons for
interpreting the Merneptah stele as mentioning Israel.
When challenged to articulate those legitimate reasons
here, you couldn't.
[/quote]
Actually I did. I summarized the linguistic reasons why it is thought
to refer to Israel. You tried to dismiss those reasons with fallacies
and a display of ignorance about diachronic linguistics that was very
entertaining...and a failure.
So, instead you posted the usual
[quote]bullshit argument for the historical existence of Israel.
[/quote]
I actually said nothing about the historical existence of Israel when
discussing the stele. I pointed to the language, script, and linguistics.
[quote]
You followed up this amazing stupid drivel by failing to
correctly identify the number of hieroglyphs making up
the word in question -- the word you like to pretend
says "Israel."
[/quote]
A word you say can't refer to Israel and yet are unable to tell us what
the stele actually says or give us one valid reason why it doesn't refer
to Israel.
I'm sure you'll spew more fallacies in response....and dig ever deeper
your own hole. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
[quote]To review: I transliterated the name on the stele,
[/quote]
No you didn't. You simply repeated a transliteration that
someone else made.
[quote]using six Latin based characters to render it into English.
[/quote]
Again, no you didn't. You DEFENDED your count of the
hieroglyphs -- not the transliteration you're pretending to have
made.
Again, in post after post you defended your miscounting of
the hieroglyphs, claiming that there were only six hieroglyphs.
It wasn't about the transliteration, it was about the hieroglyphs
you pretended to transliterate. You didn't know how many
were there, and you defended your erroneous claim that there
were SIX hieroglyphs.
Need proof? Want to see for yourself that Larry Swain
is a worthless little pussy who just invented this
"Transliteration" argument because he isn't adult enough
to admit that he got the number of Hieroglyphs wrong?
Here you go:
: > Whiskers <catwhee... at (no spam) operamail.com> wrote:
: >>I count more than a dozen 'signs' in the part of the
: >>inscription that is usually identified as referring to
: >>Israel.
:
: JTEM wrote:
: > The first two, the ones that kind of look like feathers
: > (they're not though), count as one...
:
: Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
: Indeed, which would then make the number of symbols in
: the name 6....and let's remember that you were whinging
: not long ago about how there were seven signs, not six.
Again, Larry Swain aka Weland didn't know how many
hieroglyphs make up the word in question (though he
pretended to have translated it himself), and defended his
miscount FOR DAYS. He's only pretending he was saying
something else now because he is a worthless pussy who
can't admit error.
.....what a frigging mental case.
Admit it, Larry Swain, you didn't know there were SEVEN
(and not six) signs making up the word, plus a literal mark
and determinatives), if and only if you count the two initial
read signs as one.
If you don't count them as one, that makes EIGHT signs.
You claimed that there were six, and defended that
monumentally stupid claim for days.
I'm laughing at you, again, Larry the loser. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tiglath... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 3:01 pm, JTEM <jte... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]
Again, in post after post you defended your miscounting of
the hieroglyphs,
[/quote]
Few things are funnier than a dummie affecting the vocabulary of
competences he does not have.
Keep going. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote]Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Ah, argued with all your usual (total lack of)
finesse....
Oh, you only respond to a 2x4 up along side your head....
[/quote]
Poor JTard still thinks the issue is one of counting and not reading.
To review: I transliterated the name on the stele, using six Latin based
characters to render it into English. JTard objected that there were 7
glyphs in the name. I stated that to get to 7 he'd have to count the
initial double reed twice, but if we take it as one, it's 6. JTard
responded that he is taking the double reed as one, and it still makes
7. My response since then has been to ask JTard to provide an analysis
of the name: what he sees as each sign, what phonetic value each sign
has, and what the name should be then. He has side stepped the issue
every time, claiming that it is irrelevant to discuss what the name says
when discussing what the name says. The question that JTard in all his
obfuscations has forgotten originated in my response to Martin Edwards
transliterating the name, and the question is how accurate that
transliteration is, an issue JTard can not answer or address since he
has not the skills in language, script, or linguistics--thus he side
steps, blows smoke...anything to avoid admitting he hasn't the skills
necessary to even comment on this issue. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:
[quote]Few things are funnier than
[/quote]
supposing, just supposing that most people on usenet
are capable of counting at least as high as, say, 10...
How do you think you're going to look?
You're defending an incredibly stupid error here -- counting
seven hieroglyphs as six -- and anyone who both gives a
shit and is capable of counting knows that you're a total
jackass.
Here you go:
http://img299.imageshack.us/i/israelpg0.jpg/
Count the initial two reed signs, the ones that sort of look
like feathers, as one, and stop counting at the second
mouth sign (they're the ones that sort of look like eyes).
Grand total: Seven, plus one literal mark (the vertical line
beneath the second mouth sign) and determinatives.
...and you're defending six.
Congratulations. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Whiskers... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-11-06, Weland <giles at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
[quote]JTEM wrote:
Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Ah, argued with all your usual (total lack of)
finesse....
Oh, you only respond to a 2x4 up along side your head....
Poor JTard still thinks the issue is one of counting and not reading.
[/quote]
[...]
This reading and writing lark can be horribly confusing. Perhaps JTEM can
be forgiven?
In both Welsh and Spanish, ll counts as one letter but it doesn't represent
the same sound in both languages. The letters etc together in that order
have the same meaning in both languages, but don't sound the same when
spoken by a Welsh speaker and a European Castillian Spanish speaker - and
when spoken, there are a lot more than three sounds. Meanwhile in English,
ll count as two letters but indicate a single sound, but might modify the
sound of a preceding vowel if followed by another vowel, and the
combination th indicates one sound (but not always the same sound) but
counts as two letters, and slaughter doesn't sound much like laughter and
the same four letters in each don't even represent the same number of
sounds in the two words (and not four sounds in either). Anyone trying to
attach a single sound to a € or a £ or a $, or any sound at all to a ? or a
!, is doomed to confusion in any language - and as for . and ; and ( and
an empty space - well, don't try explaining them to an ancient Egyptian
unless you've got a *lot* of time  )
And those three languages are all apparently using the same writing
system, which is generally considered to be a lot simpler and more logical
and consistent than Egyptian hieroglyphs.
Perhaps that line of hieroglyphs really means that a big bird got caught
in the bullrushes and was plucked and cooked and served on a plate and
eaten by a man and a woman with a drink of snakebite as well, and then they
played with their pet canary before going for a walk by the river and a
ride at the fairground before getting bitten by a real snake. But why
anyone would bother to carve all that into a huge monument is far from
obvious. Or perhaps we should start reading at the other end, and it's
really the story of Adam and Eve and the Serpent?
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Whiskers <catwhee... at (no spam) operamail.com> wrote:
[quote]This reading and writing lark can be horribly confusing.
Perhaps JTEM can be forgiven?
[/quote]
You're confused. Larry Swain aka "Weland" only recently
started pretending that he was arguing something else, but
the truth is that he didn't know how many hieroglyphs made
up the word, and argued for days that there were only six
when there were seven.
Here. I'll prove it.
[quote]Whiskers <catwhee... at (no spam) operamail.com> wrote:
: >>I count more than a dozen 'signs' in the part of the[/quote]
: >>inscription that is usually identified as referring to
: >>Israel.
:
: JTEM wrote:
: > The first two, the ones that kind of look like feathers
: > (they're not though), count as one...
:
: Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
: Indeed, which would then make the number of symbols in
: the name 6....and let's remember that you were whinging
: not long ago about how there were seven signs, not six.
Oh: Counting the initial two reed signs as one, that brings
the grand total to seven, and not six.
Look for yourself:
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/2796/israelpg0.jpg |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| igor... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 9:01 pm, JTEM <jte... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote] Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:
Few things are funnier than
supposing, just supposing that most people on usenet
are capable of counting at least as high as, say, 10...
How do you think you're going to look?
You're defending an incredibly stupid error here -- counting
seven hieroglyphs as six -- and anyone who both gives a
shit and is capable of counting knows that you're a total
jackass.
Here you go:
http://img299.imageshack.us/i/israelpg0.jpg/
Count the initial two reed signs, the ones that sort of look
like feathers, as one, and stop counting at the second
mouth sign (they're the ones that sort of look like eyes).
Grand total: Seven, plus one literal mark (the vertical line
beneath the second mouth sign) and determinatives.
...and you're defending six.
Congratulations.
[/quote]
Hey Jtard, I think you are a complete moron, but for some reason I
like you, maybe because you make me laugh. Here I will give you
something else to dwell on. The tale of Sinuhe was dated to 14th
century BC, it mentions Retjenu, thats how Eugyptians called Canaan in
14 century BC. The southern part of Retjenu they called Djahy. Now I
know that you dont like Jews and thats ok, we all have our likes and
dislikes and you are entitled to your share, for example I hate Asian
drivers, in my opinion, every asian driver in US should be denied a
drivers license, I have nothing agaist asians and have several asian
friends, but no drivers license, period. My brand new Mercedes was
totaled by an asian woman who I seriously contemplated to murder for a
few minutes.
Djahy is very simular to Jahydi, the way midle easterners call Jews to
present day, this is evidence in my eyes that Jews were present in
Canaan as early as 14th century BC. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
igor <inbellt... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Hey Jtard, I think you are a complete moron,
[/quote]
Another retard who can't count as high as seven...
Seriously, shit for brains, did it ever occur to you that
these postings will be here for years to come, and
people capable of counting as high as seven are going
to see them?
You're creating an electronic time capsule here, a testament
to your inability to use simple logic, not to mention
rudimentary math skills...
[quote]The tale of Sinuhe was dated to 14th century BC, it
mentions Retjenu, thats how Eugyptians called
Canaan in 14 century BC.
[/quote]
"Call" would be a vocalization, and we have no idea what
their language sounded like.
Jackass.
[quote]The southern part of Retjenu they called Djahy. Now I
know that you dont like Jews and
[/quote]
You're a sniveling little runt who is so bankrupt that he
has to try and equate me to Giwer.
Clearly your parents are at fault here, not having the
sense nor the decency to raise a child with morals.
Still, that can't be helped, and now that you are
arguably an adult you have to take responsibility for
your ethical bankruptcy....
[quote]Djahy is very simular to Jahydi, the way midle easterners
call Jews to present day,
[/quote]
It's a phonetic dead ringer to the Egyptian name of a very
important Egyptian god, one we call Thoth.
Thoth was quite often associated with the moon, which can't
be a coincidence as the Babylonian "Abraham" was
supposed to come from Ur, the seat of the Moon god. What's
more, Babylon did control the region for quite a while, sealing
the connection.
[quote]this is evidence in my eyes
[/quote]
But you are a shit head. No, seriously.
You're saying that the modern day semitic word for "Jew"
is phonetically identical to a word we don't know how to
pronounce... even as you dismiss another word -- one we
know for a fact actually existed at that time -- even though
it is equally as solid a match.
But it doesn't stop there.
Your cheap rationalization -- that the modern semitic
pronunciation comes from the ancient name for the
region, the pronunciation of which hasn't changed in the
slightest in 3 thousand years -- doesn't contradict what
I said.
This is important.
Even if you need to claim that the modern semitic
pronunciation comes from a very ancient name, that
in no way excludes the ancient name being "Thoth,"
or the ancient Egyptian name for Thoth, that is.
Idiot. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 29, 2009 11:13 pm
|
|